The Relationship between Wildlife Recreationists' Familiarity with State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Recreation Identity, and Future Financial Contributions

Abstract

North American fish and wildlife management has long been supported by the financial contributions of anglers and hunters to state fish and wildlife agencies; however, stagnation in angling participation and declines in hunting participation threaten the stability of this user‐pay support system. While engaging recreationists beyond those with consumptive interests may assist in addressing limitations of the current user‐pay benefit approach, anecdotal evidence suggests differences in recreationists' familiarity with agencies, and perceived benefits of financial contributions may dissuade certain wildlife recreationists from providing agency support. Using focus groups (n = 83) and a survey (n = 1,016) of Virginia residents, we explored how recreationists' familiarity with an agency differed among three categories of wildlife recreationists (i.e., recreation groups)—consumptive (anglers and hunters), nonconsumptive (birders and other wildlife viewers), and multi‐recreationists (those who participate in both consumptive and nonconsumptive activities)—relative to non‐wildlife recreationists (those who do not participate in fish and wildlife recreation). We further examined whether familiarity with an agency and recreation group influenced the future likelihood of financial contributions across voluntary (not required for access or use of natural resources) and user‐pay (required for access or use of natural resources) funding mechanisms. We found that consumptive recreationists and multi‐recreationists had greater familiarity with the agency than nonconsumptive recreationists. Approximately 40% of nonconsumptive recreationists were likely to support the agency through either user‐pay or voluntary mechanisms, while approximately 80% of consumptive recreationists preferred user‐pay mechanisms. Further, all recreationists expected tangible outcomes from their contributions and transparency about how their contributions would benefit their activities (e.g., newsletters detailing angling access funded by their support). We recommend that agencies build familiarity among wildlife recreationists, especially within their nonconsumptive constituency, and demonstrate how current funding mechanisms benefit and are derived from multiple recreation groups.

Exploring the relevance of the multidimensionality of wildlife recreationists to conservation behaviors: A case study in Virginia

“…Comparatively, behaviors such as informing and teaching, advocacy, and fundraising all require substantial resource investment by recreationists, and may take much longer for impacts to be seen/publicized (Larson et al, 2015). Data from the broader social science project in which this research was conducted further supports this idea, with wildlife recreationists describing their desire for tangible benefits and outcomes of their contributions to DWR (DWR, 2021;Grooms, Dayer, and Peele, 2019). Given comprehensive recreationists' connection to improving habitat and collecting data, our research suggests these behaviors may be productive areas to focus on as agencies like DWR work to engage recreationists in their future conservation goals.…”

“…To measure participation in conservation, the survey instrument included five conservation behaviors, with definitions and examples drawn from research by Larson et al (2015) and Cooper et al (2015), and insights from exploratory focus groups we conducted as part of the broader social science project (Grooms, Dayer, and Peele, 2019). Conservation behaviors included: informing or teaching others about wildlife; improving wildlife habitat on public or private lands; advocating or voting related to wildlife conservation; collecting data on wildlife or habitat to contribute to science or management; and contributing to fundraising efforts for wildlife conservation.…”

“…Considering collecting data was also one of our target conservation behaviors, its inclusion in our wildlife viewer identity may have influenced viewer's responses regarding their participation in collecting data. We used the wildlife viewer definition implemented by USDOI, 2018 and supplemented it with focus group responses from the broader DWR Wildlife Viewing Plan project (Grooms, Rutter, Barnes, Peele, and Dayer, 2020), which indicated that citizen science data collection was integral to viewing activities for many viewers. In retrospect, it may have been more appropriate to stay with the base definition from USDOI, 2018, which did not include citizen science.…”

Mapping social conflicts to enhance the integrated management of white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)

“…It is also important to keep in mind that one's self‐identity can vary with the object in consideration like a wildlife species versus a policy goal (Lute & Gore, 2014), and that individuals may identify with multiple, intersecting social groups (McCubbin & Van Patter, 2021). Our analyses focused on the self‐reported primary identity of survey respondents, but we acknowledge that a more nuanced analysis of social identities using Likert‐type scales of affiliation should be increasingly used in survey research within the human dimensions of wildlife field (Grooms et al, 2022; Schroeder et al, 2021; Snyder et al, 2022).…”